[flagged]
If that's not full self driving, but waymo's geofenced, $45 for a ride down the street is, we just disagree.
What you mean is for your intents and purposes. Others in the thread have pointed out specific intents and purposes for which Tesla's approach fails -- driving when you don't have to pay attention. Which is the core function of self-driving, so not being able to do it is kind of whole thing.
> If that's not full self driving, but waymo's geofenced, $45 for a ride down the street is, we just disagree.
Geofenced or not, self driving is about not having to pay attention while the vehicle is in motion. If you have to supervise it, that's a very different thing from a system that will all you to looking at your phone or sleep.
Tesla's approach of trying to drive everywhere instead of a geofenced area is part of why their system is failing to deliver self driving.
Trying to do one thing well before expanding the performance envelope is good systems engineering practice. But Tesla has been widely testing their systems on the greater public, which has tragically resulted in deaths. This is why at the end of the day Tesla requires you to supervise their system while you operate it.
Except in self summon, and if it side swipes the car on the way out, it's obviously still my fault. That's just never happened to me.
Where in my sentence did i say I wasn't fully in control of the situation? I just say i very, very rarely even have to disengage in situations.
On the very rare occassion that i do disengage, it's not really that the car is going to put me in a life threatening situation, it kinda just stops... and tweeks out a bit. Mainly at some super wierd triangle intersection in some of the small towns along the california coast.
Honestly i've come to "feel" the car after using it. I'll disengage if i even have a shadow of a doubt it's not going to work, and in situations where i've seen it "fail" before. It might have accomplished it, but instead i just drive through the wierd intersection and reengage.
This has already turned into a rant, but one last point; Have you driven in the other cars in Austin? They do the same thing. When it tweaks, or thinks it might tweak, they patch over to a human who takes control of the car.
Except that you're responsible for its faults and errors, because you are the one driving.
"Self driving" means I can be drunk, or I can put a kid in it, or an elderly person. That's what that word means: the car drives itself.
Tesla chose a different strategy. It's hard to collect enough data to know exactly how safe it is.
As long as you pay for the people you injure and kill on the way, you can let your Tesla drive you anywhere, even if it can't do it. You can let it try, and maybe it fails. That's totally fine. You will be held liable, but you get to enjoy your trip to Tahoe.
Self-driving companies that have to pay for the systematic faults of their systems will usually move different.
And, he would be liable if that's what you're asking. Tesla, at no time, claimed that their vehicles should be used in that fashion.
https://www.reuters.com/article/technology/waymos-self-drivi...
> Disengagements occur when the self-driving system is deactivated with control handed back to humans because of a system failure or a traffic, weather or road situation that required human intervention.
> Waymo, for example, drove 352,545 miles in the state during the period with only 63 disengagements. Cruise vehicles drove about a third less, at 127,516 miles, and had 105 disengagements.
> The third best performance came from Nissan Motor Co, which drove 5,007 miles and had 24 disengagements, meaning that its vehicles had disengagements on average every 208 miles.
Notice that Tesla isn't even included. That's because they don't actually have full self driving tests ongoing like this. Just the half-assed version they beta test with their customers on public roads.