On a side note, legally if a Full Self-Driving system kills someone ... who gets sued? The manufacturer? Is Tesla going to tank every single lawsuit from its Full Self-Driving system injuring/killing someone?
On Monday, California's state regulator said: "Based on information Tesla has provided the DMV, the feature does not make the vehicle an autonomous vehicle per California regulations."
So the safety concern seems justified. Tesla said it’s full self driving. In reality it’s just assisted driving. Maybe they aren’t prepared to deal with the risk???
This is why we’re never going to have self driving cars. If everything that they say in the industry has to be taken with a grain of salt, why would any city agree to take on that liability?
Doesn’t even matter if the tech saves lives. You can’t even be straight about what you can deliver.
Really we are deciding car company marketing terms are suddenly dubious when someone is legitimately on the cusp of a breakthrough.
VW Blue Motion… there is no blue in that motion.
Audi Quattro Engine… is it four cylinders? 4 litres?
Ford Mach-E — Mach has a defined meaning… seems deceptive to me.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_G._Komen_for_the_Cure#Co...
If FSD can handle >90% of my driving, I’ll not quibble.
> The driver is only in the seat for legal reasons. The car is driving itself.
and talk to me about "it's only marketing, you should understand".
Oh, and as the owner of three Audis over my life, there is NO material from Audi that calls it a "Quattro Engine".
It's the "Quattro all wheel drive system".
What’s the accepted term for level 5 autonomy?
What’s the accepted term for level 2?
Do you think there are tesla consumers being tricked by FSD capabilities? Right now it highlights that it auto drives on highways but not on streets… which is pretty accurate in my opinion. Where is the dishonesty?
Full Self Driving would be acceptable and accurate for level 5.
Now for level 2 advanced driver assistance.
“The driver is only in the seat for legal reasons. The car is driving itself” is a current Tesla statement. That’s inaccurate.
“The car is driving itself until it can’t, or it does something it shouldn’t. But you’re in charge, and we legally disclaim any responsibility for failures of the car to drive itself” doesn’t have quite the same ring to it, I admit.
Not misleading or confusing at all. I’m glad people focused on Audi’s Quattro out of my examples because it’s honestly the worst one.
Let's not beat about the bush, it's clear that some drivers are already abusing the current "self-driving but not really-self driving" autopilot features. This steps up the bullshit saying "oh this time it is full self driving (but not the total absolute hands off autonomous driving". So which is it? If it's not fully autonomous, don't bullshit saying it's full self driving.
In other words, if there's no blue in Blue Motion, no count of 4 in a quattro and no mach in Mach-E, that's not likely to get people killed. But if there's no full self driving in something called "Full Self Driving", that can and will get people killed.
I know there have been some autopilot accidents but that’s not this system.
However, I have issues with calling and marketing something "Fully Self-Driving" and then adding paragraphs of text to explain that it's actually not fully autonomous, in fact it's not supposed to be autonomous at all and the driver has to have their full attention on the road and hands on the wheel and any other operation is dangerous. If this was something benign, I'd just consider it disingenuous and shady marketing (that seems par for the course for corporations), but in case of a 2 ton vehicle it's not just their own customers at risk, but everyone around them.
Yes, you and me know what this system really is and can approach it responsibly. But we see so much evidence that there are many people who have no scruples about ignoring this (willfully or not) and assuming that the system must be good enough if it's called "Fully Self-Driving" to unpack a lunch on their lap.
By contrast, car features generally have non-misleading names - "anti-lock breaking system", "cruise [speed] control" etc. "Full self driving" goes beyond the pail any way you look at it. It is a very explicit name: it means very specifically that a car can drive itself, with no human intervention whatsoever. Even more, Elon Musk, the CEO of the company, has repeatedly claimed to buyers that FSD will allow the cars to work as robo-taxis that can be allowed to work for their owners while their owners are otherwise occupied. This again very explicitly says that FSD doesn't require any human intervention whatsoever.
The fact that, after realizing that it obviously is nowhere near close to such a thing*, they started putting in warning that Full Self Driving is in fact not full self driving in any way shouldn't excuse them. They have obviously repeatedly lied and misled buying customers, and the name has to be changed.
*(and won't be in the next 50 years, most likely, until we actually start seeing AGI or something)
Also FSD is offered as a subscription so you can “try it out” if you are cautious. Do people really see this as an issue?
There are MUCH worse things on the road than FSD driven Teslas - what consequence do people think will occur?
"Full self driving" is an explicit term - "self driving" means the car drives itself. "Full" means it does it fully. It couldn't be any clearer what the term means.
Terms like "blue motion", "quattro", "mach-e" are just made up branding terms that would mean nothing to anyone without knowing about them before hand.
FSD doesnt mean anything to anyone either, as it’s never been done before.
Its because only Telsa does it. Name an example of another manufacturer using a term as explicit and misleading as "full self driving".
You don't see other manufacturers calling ABS "fully tailgating safe".
BMW: BMW Personal CoPilot systems
Audi: Traffic Jam Pilot (which they class as Level 3 autonomous driving, higher than Tesla class both autopilot and FSD).
This isn’t an opinion… this is fact. People hate on Tesla out of ignorance of the automotive industry.
Some more facts, Tesla make: - the safest cars (no qualification required) - most efficient production cars - most advanced “auto pilot” but they class it the lowest level.
The nonsense in HN threads talking about safety issues in Tesla or FSD need to go look up cruise control crashes in any other manufacture.
(I don’t own a Tesla nor am I invested. I do work with almost all the major OEMs in my day job)
Other one is currently absolutely total lie which should result termination of company, other is not in anyway misleading.
But sure, FSD is the irresponsible one.
Autopilot keeps your heading and velocity and is aware of objects in its path… so that’s extremely similar to autopilot in a plane.
Full self driving drives the car on its own. It still monitors driver awareness. But the car does most of the driving. I don’t see the issue. It does what it says.
> Full self driving drives the car on its own. It still monitors driver awareness. But the car does most of the driving.
Full directly contradicts most
I can reel out examples all day, that no one bats an eye at. But Tesla so something… it’s a whole different ball game.
Descriptive names are bad, because: I don’t think full self driving is full if there are any interventions.
(Despite there being a sliding scale of autonomous driving from levels 1 to 5 with FSD easily falling into 3 if not 4).
Teslas official literature classes it at level 2. But yep, super misleading compared to “Safe Sense” (aka forward hazard detection). Do you know what Tesla call that feature: “forward hazard detection” those bastards with their descriptive names!
Think of it like firing a gun into the air. You didn't aim to kill anyone, but if someone is unlucky enough to be hit when the bullet comes back down you are still responsible.
If someone is unlucky enough to be struck by your FSD vehicle it'll still be your fault, regardless of whether you could have known it'd happen.
Drivers will need to weigh trusting their car's software against the risk of being responsibly for what it does.