Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If it isn't reliable then why would you call it autopilot and release it to the public. It's a glorified cruise control. Tesla describes it as a driver assist and yet at the same time calls it autopilot which are two different things and the source of the confusion.
There have been several accidents involving the autopilot according to customers. This is the first one that was apparently fatal. There have also been plenty of near misses but the human drivers were able to take control of the car in time before it crashed into something. 100 million miles sounds like an exaggerated figure to me, and have not been accident free prior to the fatal event.
The system is quite flawed. I think fully autonomous cars have a long way to go.
I think autonomous technology is most suitable to freeway driving, akin to an advanced or fully automated cruise control, and that's where ultimately it will be limited to. The challenges and complexities of urban driving may well prove too much for the technology to handle. Which is not a bad thing since for most people freeway commuting is the most tedious and least enjoyable kind of driving there is, and the kind that most lends itself to automation (edit: if all the current problems and limitations can be resolved).
Last edited by cisco kid; 07-03-2016 at 04:50 PM..
07-03-2016, 04:07 PM
i7pXFLbhE3gq
n/a posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by cisco kid
It's either a driver assist or autopilot it can't be both. No doubt Tesla wants to call it autopilot for marketing purposes but for legal and liability purposes also describes it as a driver assist where the driver has to be paying attention at all times. But from a customer point of view the conflicting information only creates confusion.
(Like cruise control it works only on the freeway and not intended for urban driving. It can't read street signs, can't detect pedestrians and cyclists, etc.)
How do you think aircraft autopilot works? They assist the human. They most certainly do not replace the human.
You're acting as if people think that pilots climb into the cockpit, press the "Fly" button, then take a nap until they wake up at their destination. No rational person believes that.
How do you think aircraft autopilot works? They assist the human. They most certainly do not replace the human.
You're acting as if people think that pilots climb into the cockpit, press the "Fly" button, then take a nap until they wake up at their destination. No rational person believes that.
To most people who aren't aircraft pilots or aviation experts the word autopilot is exactly as it sounds, a vehicle that pilots itself.
The word itself implies full automation, and nothing that implies driver assist.
To most people who aren't aircraft pilots or aviation experts the word autopilot is exactly as it sounds, a vehicle that pilots itself.
The word itself implies full automation, and nothing that implies driver assist.
Then you do not really understand. The model S system does more than the airborne autopilots do. They actually change course based on conditions and take action to avoid obstacles. Airborne systems have a much lesser role. Generally just maintaining a preset course and optimizing the use of certain resources.
Tesla again is doing a type 2 system which has limited capability. Google and others are going for type 4 and type 5 systems which require no driver assist.
And remember the communication package is coming in 2020. So after that all new vehicles will be able to communicate with each other.
Then you do not really understand. The model S system does more than the airborne autopilots do. They actually change course based on conditions and take action to avoid obstacles.Airborne systems have a much lesser role. Generally just maintaining a preset course and optimizing the use of certain resources.
Yeah no kidding. An autopilot that doesn't recognize obstacles and takes action to avoid them wouldn't be much of an autopilot would it?
Again why would Tesla call it autopilot when it works nothing like the autopilot on an airplane as you just explained? Another good way to confuse people, which is what happened. As the article stated Tesla drivers will often flip on the autopilot feature and completely take their eyes off the road while they text on their phones, watch a movie, read a book or whatever. It's a misleading term, period, a term that creates a false sense of security and in this case lead to a fatal accident.
Yeah no kidding. An autopilot that doesn't recognize obstacles and takes action to avoid them wouldn't be much of an autopilot would it?
Again why would Tesla call it autopilot when it works nothing like the autopilot on an airplane as you just explained? Another good way to confuse people, which is what happened. As the article stated Tesla drivers will often flip on the autopilot feature and completely take their eyes off the road while they text on their phones, watch a movie, read a book or whatever. It's a misleading term, period, a term that creates a false sense of security and in this case lead to a fatal accident.
No. The cause of the accident was clearly a failure of the autopilot and a non-attentive driver. But clearly the autopilot failed and there are other known cases...some of which have less explanation then this one does. Tesla needs to fix all those until they are extremely rare. And a number of these failures are of a type that I would call basic sensing. And that is very bad. The point to these devices is a good set of sensors should be much better than a human. And Tesla is not at that level.
So the autopilot is a work in process and needs to be handled carefully.
It is still more capable than an airplane autopilot. I would think it a couple of years they may well perfect to a fully functional level.
How do you think aircraft autopilot works? They assist the human. They most certainly do not replace the human.
You're acting as if people think that pilots climb into the cockpit, press the "Fly" button, then take a nap until they wake up at their destination. No rational person believes that.
Modern planes and drones can most certainly fly themselves, land and takeoff. Many planes like the f-117 and the B-2 could never even be flown without computers. If you are in f-22 and the plane is out of control the procedure is to take your hands off the controls. Many of the things they can do with military aircraft are only made possible with computers.
And just to add the human factor only limits possibilities because of the limits of the human body.
And small young females are vastly more tolerant of Gs and use little oxygen compared to the standard US fighter pilot. We never did get around to sending up 17 year old females though did we?
So in practice it will turn out that the autonomous plane will kill off the human fighter pilot. Though they have gotten to such an over the horizon approach to fighters that you only see the other guy as you or he are floating down in your parachute.
All of which says the autonomous vehicle is about as certain as sun rise. The question is when.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
