1. It's not autopilot, by any measurable criteria
2. As the adjusted data clearl shows, it's not that hard to match it. And since you mention Volvo, they definitely match it. They are honest enough though not to call it "autopilot", or "full safe driving" or pin the plame for its failures on the driver.
Of course they have to be monitoring the flight but they can be generally assured that the autopilot won't decide to just fly into a mountain with only fractions of a second for the pilots to intervene.
And most airlines ended up cancelling pending orders for the 737 Max and switched to a different brand that didn't play nearly as fast and loose with safety.
Example: Traffic Resolution advisories require a 5 second reaction time and 2.5 seconds for any follow-on reactions. This reaction time includes the time to disengage autopilot and also put the aircraft into a climb-or-dive. Studies show that a situationally aware pilot takes at least 2 seconds to start the reaction, and another second to achieve the proper climb/descent. There are other times on e.g. approach, or ground collision warnings with even narrower margins for disengaging autopilot.
Pilots generally know when they need to be hyper-aware with autopilot and so do competent Tesla drivers. If there are issues with the name "autopilot" for Tesla, the same argument needs to be made for aircraft manufacturers.
If a drivers license required as much training as a pilots license then you might have a point.
An IMO important difference with pilots is that pilots are professionals that get trained and periodically retrained on how specific planes and their autopilots work.
Tesla drivers, on the other hand, hear Tesla’s at times optimistic marketing, and may just learn how to switch autopilot on and off without understanding when to use it and when not to use it.
Pilots require extensive training (an re-training). The must meet certain criteria to even fly certain types of plains. And they have to go through additional training if they have to switch planes (going from Airbus to Boeing for example).
So, if we're making "teh same argument" for Tesla, then Tesla needs all that to call its system an autopilot.
When the Autopilot swerves into a concrete wall for no reason, you will have 0.5 seconds left to live. Rwacting in the last 0.1 secons bwf9re collision will not save you - you must react in like 200ms.
It is physically impossible to react in time to some autopilot mistakes, stop defending this idiocy.
https://futurism.com/the-byte/tesla-drivers-autopilot-swerve...
In the example video the car starts turning at 40 seconds and passes the barrier at 47 seconds.
It does seem quite comparable in capabilities to the actual autopilot in aircraft. And that’s what’s confusing to people; most don’t realize that an autopilot is a control used by a driver or pilot to reduce their workload. (As a pilot, I am still logging flight time as the “sole manipulator of controls” during the time the autopilot is engaged.)
You know like that claim about human being there just because of pesky regulations and laws. Not because human would be needed.
including the system's assumption that the operator of the vehicle is doing so as a trained professional in that skill, including the extensive continuous training requirements required to maintain professional-level expertise?
Most Cars volvo produced is not as safe simply because Volvo is still making most of the money on Gasoline car, and they are less safe vs electric. Do we need to create a screaming article "Vovlo is deliberately making money on old tech that kills people"? Again volvo is a premium brand, so they don't want to invest more in EV to make your car more safe. They also promote hybrid Cars that has highest chances to catch on fire compares to EV and regular ICE cars.
But yeah, naming of an optional feature is so much more important compares to real tech, crash tests etc. That's a logic media is trying to put in our head. Don't think.
Dude, really?
https://group.volvocars.com/company/innovation/electrificati...
In fact tesla is about to release structural batteries cars, that will use battery as part of the cars body, makes it even more safe. Model Y with structural pack will be out in March 2022.
Volvo at this moment promoting hybrids and ICE that doesn't have this features, because it's bloody business. And money is money.
Just compare real actions of Volvo who claim one of the safest brand and Tesla.
> In fact tesla is about to release structural batteries cars, that will use battery as part of the cars body, makes it even more safe. Model Y with structural pack will be out in March 2022.
I'll believe that when I see it. How's the Tesla Semi release going? Especially since structural batteries are still an active research topic that actual researchers think will be in mass production in 5 years or more.
And it can nicely burst into flames that burn for hours on, without any easy way to put it out. I sure as hell would rather have a broken arm over being burnt alive in a steel frame.
That's... quite a leap.
> Do we need to create a screaming article "Vovlo is deliberately making money on old tech that kills people"?
That would be just that: a screaming article.
> so they don't want to invest more in EV to make your car more safe.
Ah, yes. Because the only way to make a car safe is to make it electric.
1. I was responding to the ridiculous claim of "if you care about safety it's hard to match with what Tesla offers".
This claim is bullshit, and Volvo easily matches what Tesla offers when it comes to car safety
2. Volvo XC40 Recharge, C40 Recharge are the cars that exist, but you chose to ignore them
> Naming of an optional feature is so much more important compares to real tech, crash tests etc.
I tried to parse this sentense, and I couldn't. Are you saying that Volvo doesn't do real tech, or doesn't do crash tests etc.? If so, are you delusional?
BTW, here's Volvo's purpose-built crash-test laboratory: https://www.media.volvocars.com/se/sv-se/media/videos/154740...